letter from Bob to Mike

[Michael Eisenstadt]

Bob,

You posted the message below at 11:58am and I got it in my INBOX 
twice at electronic speed. I got the one from yahoogroups 
as well as the one from pairlist.net. so i am obviously
not previewing your messages. never have, never will. you 
havent said whether you ever ever got a reject notice from pairlist.
if your message had been rejected by the maillist server
you would have gotten a reject message automatically.

Did you?

Clark did get a reject message because using a different
email address than his usual one, the one i had checked
to disable so he wouldnt get TWO copies of every message,
he jumped to the conclusion that I was previewing his
messages. I have re-enabled his second email address and
now he should be getting 2 copies of each agl message
assuming he checks both addresses.

yes, i have put jim strong's email address in the mail
to be previewed box. it seems only fair to institute this,
finally, since it is something he has so long erroneously 
assumed to be happening. now it IS happening to him, 
this must make him tingle all over pink with excitement

telebob x wrote:
> 
> Mike-
> 
> The reason I posted to the Yahoogroups backup list was because the last two
> or three posts I made to the Pairlist (after I made some snipy remark
> towards you recently) have not gone through. Maybe a coincidence, maybe not.
> 
> Since you have blocked other's mail to this list in the past, it is only
> reasonable to assume that you have done the same to me now. I posted to
> Yahoogroups backup on the off-chance that you had forgotten to block that
> one. It seems that was a correct assumption.
> 
> Now then, ahem.
> 
> Mike, I have no desire to fight with you on this list, or any list.  I don't
> mind disagreeing with you, though. I would question my entire identity if I
> did not. I am sorry that you continue to interpret and characterize those
> differences as "hatred".

wow! you take exception to me dissing Wali after his ugly ugly
pseudoanoymous 
insulting of me, and my wife, and my name and her name. but its okay for
you to diss me up and down and sideways and throw in some chains to
chain
me up with. seems like something close to hatred to me.

> The curious thin air of the e-mail environment always exaggerates the naked
> meaning of words, and sometimes people give WAY too much weight to these
> morning or late-night snippets of agitated fingers. I'll argue with a
> wheelbarrow in some cases.
> 
> But Mike, you should not accuse me of having hatred for you, but I DO find
> much of your behaviour over the last year to be objectionable. I have called
> you on it.  You are welcome to do the same for me.  There are damned few
> saints on this list.
> 
> You also had a lot of mitzvah points for running the a-g-l list, but you
> threw them away when you started your role as list cop, and you really went
> in the minus category when you whipped up on Wali (However tempting a target
> you found him to be, you should have resisted that urge.). But let's forget
> that.

let's not. see above.
 
> As someone who has known you for 35 years or so, let me go on record as
> saying that I don't hate you. I don't even feel much animosity, but you DO
> piss me off with some frequency, and when you do, I fire back. That's a
> quite a distance from hatred.

you may have known me since 1963 but you were certainly never a friend.
i remember inviting you to dinner when Madelon and I lived in that 
bungalow at the end of West 9th street when you first moved back to
Austin. unfortunately we failed to charm and that was the last time
we saw you for a long time. 
 
> If this were the old Chuck Wagon, I would probably avoid your table for a
> few weeks and go over and sit with Belmer, Dave, and Connie...or whomever.
> Surely in that environment, whatever catty comment or solecism that ruffled
> the feathers, would soon pass and we could later get back to the marketplace
> of ideas and a little more rough jousting.
> 
> So let me say I apologize for any ad hominem attacks I have made regarding
> you.  I prefer to confine my criticisms to your provebable actions and often
> laughable notions.  At the same time I also want to say thank you for the
> efforts you have put forth on keeping the ghetto lists going. I also
> recognize that you serve a valuable function in your yenta/foil role.... and
> yes, you may have had some smart things to say about something I am
> sure...hmm.
> 
> My hope is that you will simply restore my privleges to post on Pair.com
> list, and I encourage you to do the same for anyone else you have blocked in
> the past.  I used to enjoy the a-g-l. I also like the other lists that have
> spun off from a-g-l.  I did not wish to see the a-g-l die, and that is why I
> still (tried to) post to it from time to time.

Your priveleges to post on Pair.com were never tampered with, despite
Jim Strong's rantings. You do realize that, don't you? Don't you? 

Of course Jim Strong remains on the must be previewed list, in some
strange 
sick way, he unconsciously craves this. this way i can edit out his
poisonal remarks and forward anything of substance 

Mike